FBI General Counsel -- Law Enforcement Implications of D.C. Corporation Counsel Determination

David Copus is an employment lawyer.

October 7, 1996
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW #136
Washington, DC  20008-4530

Howard Shapiro, Esq.
FBI General Counsel
Headquarters
Washington, DC  20535

RE:  Homicide Risk -- Weapons Possession - D.C. Corporation Counsel Affirmation

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Enclosed of the information of the Bureau's Office of General Counsel is a letter dated October 7, 1996 addressed to David A. Copus, Esq. of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue relevant to the above-referenced issues.

The express affirmation by the D.C. Corporation Counsel that an Akin Gump co-workers' statement that I might be armed and homicidal was not evidence of a hostile, offensive, or intimidating work environment, and that these specific fears (namely, that I might acquire firearms and possess the intent to commit murder) were relevant to the employer's decision to terminate my employment, conflicts with the statement dated April 24, 1995 that I made to the District of Columbia Office of U.S. Attorney 1/ under penalty of criminal sanctions that I have never possessed or had the intent to acquire firearms and have never engaged in violent threats.  I believe that statements contained in the Corporation Counsel's Brief in Opposition filed in Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C. Superior Court MPA 95-14, raise law enforcement and/or civil rights concerns.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman
______________________
1/  "Statement of Gary Freedman made to the Office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Regarding Intent to Commit Crime of Violence as Determined by the Law Firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld," forwarded to the Bureau's Office of General Counsel under cover letter dated June 20, 1996.